Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 18:25:33 06/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2000 at 21:23:59, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >I believe that in the CCC context PC is always "personal computer". As well as >TSCP. Or nps. Or PV. > >Eugene Sorry, of course I meant that TSCP, nps, and PV are non-ambigious here. Eugene >On June 23, 2000 at 20:33:39, leonid wrote: > >>On June 23, 2000 at 14:15:06, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 2000 at 11:13:04, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2000 at 10:25:17, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 23, 2000 at 10:07:15, leonid wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 22, 2000 at 07:30:50, blass uri wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 22, 2000 at 06:27:09, leonid wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 22, 2000 at 02:54:43, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2000 at 21:18:07, leonid wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2000 at 19:03:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2000 at 17:07:06, leonid wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2000 at 13:38:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>If you think that material-only evaluation programs are good for anything, >>>>>>>>>>>>>you're sadly mistaken. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I said only that material evaluation is evaluation about everything in principe. >>>>>>>>>>>>About tactics... or just say it. I agree that in actual state of hardware it is >>>>>>>>>>>>not enough have only material evaluation, but its importance will grow as >>>>>>>>>>>>rapidly as hardware capacity will improve. Very soon program that have in its >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Only evaluating material has zero importance. Why would you do it when you can >>>>>>>>>>>evaluate material AND positional terms with no penalty? Besides, material is >>>>>>>>>>>just a rule of thumb, just like any positional term. Thinking that you can make >>>>>>>>>>>a good program by only considering material is absurd, no matter how fast your >>>>>>>>>>>computer is. >>>>>>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Do we speak about my program or about general idea? If we speak about my program >>>>>>>>>>it is not that interesting, since we will talk only about one program in >>>>>>>>>>particular. When we speak about general idea, yes, material echange can say >>>>>>>>>>everything. Only through the material echange you can find mate or draw. By the >>>>>>>>>>same mean you can find all other move in the game, name it positional, tactical >>>>>>>>>>or otherwise. We can talk how much computer power we need for the best program >>>>>>>>>>right now to find this or other kind of move, but this is something else. Idea >>>>>>>>>>is simple - material echange do everything and everywhere. In chess game logic >>>>>>>>>>is enough to see everything in it from beginning up to the end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Leonid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thoretically you are right but practically >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So, we say the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Tom is right that material only is absurd >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Here it is only the game of the words but actually we are saying the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You do not need material but you need only the 32 piece tablebases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is theoretically possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If the computer dimensions are 1000,000 kilometers*1000000 kilometers*1000000 >>>>>>>>>kilometers and if it can remember one position in 1/10000 milimeter*1/10000 >>>>>>>>>milimeter*1/10000 milmeter then it can remember 10^48 positions >>>>>>>>>and I know that it is not bigger than the number of legal positions in chess >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Of course this idea is absurd like the idea of material only evaluation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ura, when I tryed to write my first logic for solving the mate I was curious for >>>>>>>>how long ahead people can see (and rapidly) when the mate is there. I found that >>>>>>>>actually it is not that far away, only some 6 or 8 plies deep. Biggest part of >>>>>>>>all "genious, "incredible", "magnificent" move, found by the best champion of >>>>>>>>the world, in real game, during the chapionship were very specifique. Almost all >>>>>>>>of them was instantly solvable by so called "quick mate solving logic" and was >>>>>>>>in the depth between 10 and 14 plies. If human can see actually all moves in the >>>>>>>>game and rapidly, beyond mate and draw, at the same depth as it is for mate, we >>>>>>>>are close to be there. Very soon brute force search for material echange (no >>>>>>>>extensions) will be able to go easely 8 plies deep in around 1 second. This >>>>>>>>could permit to search pretty well by quick logic 14 plies deep to make good >>>>>>>>move. The rest in the game could be easely available by using the database for >>>>>>>>beginning and the end of the game. The extras will be more for overkill that by >>>>>>>>making the program strong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Leonid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe that player with rating 2000 will have no problem to win against only >>>>>>>material evaluation,no extensions,14 plies+opening book. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe that 8 plies of TSCP are worth more than 14 plies of only material >>>>>>>evaluation program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is easy to get programs out of the opening book in a few moves so it is not >>>>>>>going to help much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Even without going out of book it will be easy to win the 14 ply program(for >>>>>>>example the 14 ply program will not know that it should push the pawn forwards >>>>>>>and it may do stupid mistakes in the endgame by playing passively). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tablebases also are not going to help because the program is going to have no >>>>>>>chance before the very simple endgame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>When you play quick game you hardly will have that much time to thing about >>>>>>everything. Quick game, that so many people like, is mainly the place where >>>>>>chess program is better that normal human and where "brute force" is so >>>>>>important. >>>>> >>>>>Quick game against humans are not interesting because humans lose against top >>>>>programs of today. >>>>> >>>>>I think that only material evaluation will have problems even in quick games >>>>>against humans(not against most players but certainly agaisnt grandmasters. >>>> >>>>Maybe. >>>> >>>> >>>>>In quick game between computers evaluation is more important and I am sure that >>>>>14 ply brute force with only material evaluation is going to have big problems >>>>>against 12 plies+some knowledge like the knowledge of TSCP. >>>> >>>>Don't know what is TSCP. I am not sure what is the 12 plies+some knowledge. But >>> >>>My God... you need to go to your doctor and see if you have Altzheimer's. (sp?) >>> >>>Don't you remember our LONG, drawn-out e-mail conversations where I constantly >>>insisted that you examine TSCP?? >>> >>>-Tom >> >>Tom, do you know what is PC? >> >>PC - personal computer? >> >>PC - Partie Communiste? >> >>PC - Partie Concervative? >> >>Leonid.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.